[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-282) Vetoing types - clarify consequences

[Mark Struberg (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12745519#comment-12745519 ] 

Mark Struberg commented on CDI-282:
-----------------------------------

Martin, should we support @Vetoed on annotations at all? We don't fire ProcessAnnotatedType for them neither, isn't? It just sounds crazy to use a veto annotation on a CDI annotation. You could simply comment out the @Qualifier and get the same effect ;)
                
> Vetoing types - clarify consequences
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-282
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>            Reporter: Martin Kouba
>            Assignee: Pete Muir
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.1.PFD
>
>
> The spec currently says {{@Vetoed}} type is *prevented from being considered by CDI* and {{ProcessAnnotatedType.veto()}} forces the container to ignore the type. This is quite obvious for classes and interfaces. However not so clear when vetoing annotations (e.g. qualifier). I think ignoring means not being considered as qualifier (thus affects resolution). Other (rather theoretical) example is vetoing non-contextual instances - should it prevent performing dependency injection?

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira